Why Ukraine should reject Russia's demands on language, Orthodox church

Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s top diplomat and a key pillar of the Putin regime, gave a noteworthy interview to the Russian propaganda channel Russia 24. He claimed that his state never intended to seize Crimea, Donbas, or the occupied territories in southern Ukraine.

“We never talked about simply taking over any territories. Neither Crimea, nor Donbas, nor Novorossiya as territories were ever our goal. Our goal was to protect people — the ‘Russian’ people,” said one of Kremlin’s main figures.

This statement should be seen as an expansion of Putin’s personal request to Donald Trump in Alaska — to pressure Ukraine into granting official status to the Russian language and maintaining the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine. Both demands are core instruments of the “Russian world” ideology and a real tool for brainwashing people into rootless, identity-less conformity.

For those who do not think critically, the strategy is simple: small concessions are enough. This involves aggressive attacks on Ukrainian language advocates, intimidation referencing the fate of the famous philologist Iryna Farion, and cheap speculation about Russian-speaking soldiers at the front with fabricated statistics having no relation to sociology. In reality, at the front, everyone already uses either Russian — otherwise, friendly fire could happen.

A key counterpoint is that while soldiers at the front have important work, when people in the rear — from suburban beach clubs or even Dubai — write such things, it raises questions.

It’s also easy to refute the claim pushed by those who say, “I’ll speak whichever language I want,” that the protection of Russian is supposedly written into the Constitution because it is a national minority. Former Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration and Odesa native Olha Stefanishyna clarified in an official comment that, according to former EU ambassador to Ukraine Matti Maasikas, Russia has long applied the “Russian national minority” playbook in Estonia. “But here’s the crucial life hack: there is no Russian minority in Ukraine. It does not exist. There is no legally recognized community identifying itself as a Russian minority. There are Ukrainian citizens who speak Russian,” Stefanishyna said.

"Thus, the demands for Russian as an official language and unrestricted presence of the ROC are purely political. They constitute direct interference by an aggressor state in Ukraine’s internal affairs, aiming to break any future resistance."

Moreover, Ukraine has already experienced two waves of large-scale Russification, when cultural gatekeepers decided who would become a celebrity on talent shows. Similarly, honorary titles like “People’s Artist of Ukraine” were awarded to Philip Kirkorov and Nikolai Baskov. Did these decades of cultural erosion stop the war? No. Those same figures supported the full-scale invasion and entertained Russian troops in hospitals.

It’s also painful to recall Ukrainian performers like Taisia Povaliy, Anna Asti, or Ani Lorak, who remained silent while Russia was killing women in maternity wards, bedrooms, and entire families. This illustrates how convenient rubles can outweigh basic human dignity.

"Therefore, granting luxury conditions for the Russian language and a free hand for the ROC poses far greater threats to Ukraine’s sovereignty than temporary occupations of Bakhmut or Melitopol. History shows that territories can be regained — the key is that there must be people left to reclaim them."

If Ukrainians continue to behave like “Little Russians,” listening to Russian rap, watching shows like Svaty, or lining up for concerts of Max Korzh or Basta, Russian forces will continue “protecting Russian speakers,” and there will be no one left to defend Ukraine’s identity.

"In the modern world, you can be anyone by origin or skin color. What matters is how you self-identify. Language and culture are decisive markers of political nationhood. Ukraine can survive temporary loss of territory, but it is far from guaranteed that it will withstand a third wave of russification."

For those who believe that concessions on language will stop the war: remember Zelenskyy’s speeches that “there is no difference what language you speak.” In 2019–2020, Ukrainianophobic members of the Servant of the People faction — Buzhansky, Dubinsky, Bragar, Hetmantsev — repeatedly attacked the language law, trying to delay adoption of rules for Ukrainian-language schools. Even a minor figure like Heorhiy Mazurashu proposed in April 2023, during counteroffensive preparations, to abolish the law requiring the use of Ukrainian in service sectors.

The same applied to the church. Early in Zelenskyy’s presidency, his deputies included Serhiy Trofimov, who actively slowed down parish transitions from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, while also serving as an aide to Onufriy.

So a reasonable question arises: how did these concessions to all things Russian help prevent the full-scale invasion? On the contrary — this policy convinced the West that Ukraine’s statehood is purely symbolic, and that Ukrainian housewives had already put on plastic wreaths to prepare “holidays for the liberators.”

Complying with such political demands paves the way for figures like Murayev’s circle, a renaissance of Yuriy Boyko, and the popularity of personalities like Anna Alkhim and Kievstoner — people indifferent to where and how, as long as the oil money keeps flowing.

Agreeing to such political demands quickly reshapes the state and society, eroding sovereignty until it disappears entirely. Then Russia could truly save on war costs and “Oreshnik” threats to Kyiv. Ukraine would destroy itself and become “Little Russia,” with leaders lacking roots, lineage, or a national identity.

Exclusively for Espreso

About the author: Maryna Danyliuk-Yarmolaieva, journalist.

The editorial board doesn't always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.